craig

That would be pretty tough for Hendry to stay involved with Fukudome, I'd think. Getting a LH RFer has been his primary objective since the season ended. Most all teams are trying to shape their rosters and their budgets. Does Hendry really want to freeze that hunt and sit out the winter meetings and all of the roster resolutions that other clubs are making during December in order to wait for Fukudome? Unless he's really confident/sure that he's going to get Fukudome anyway, or that some desirable alternative will still be available in January, wouldn't stalling a Fukudome decision really paralyze absolutely everything else that hendry can do? So much so that Hendry might decide he can't wait any longer, and needs to get what he can here before it's too late?

The article said a scout said 29 teams would line up to talk. But Hendry's situation is that he can a) have him on a 1-year deal for $3 or so. b) persuade him to sign some 2-year or multi-year thing. c) nontender. If Hendry nontenders, the other teams aren't obligated to give the $3/1 deal Hendry has. They can offer $2/1, or whatever they please, and let the market set the price. But Hendry's lowest 1-year offer is constrained by the 80% rule. Would 29 teams line up to offer $3/1, when the 1 will be followed by free agency, and most/all of the 1 will be rehab? Maybe yes, but maybe no. And would 29 teams be lining up at Hendry's door to offer real trade value in order to get a $3/1 obligation for a rehab guy? Maybe yes, but if not it wouldn't surprise me. I assume that Hendry will tender him an offer, and continue to negotiate later. But if the $3/1 is what he gets stuck with, that he'll take that as the cost of doing business, and hope that Prior turns golden. I don't think that's necessarily too much to offer to retain control for at least a little longer. But it seems many of the deals suggested by posters are Cub-friendly deals. Control Prior beyond this year so we can get a really good pitcher if he does bounce back, but options and all kinds of protections in case he doesn't come back. I'm a Cub fan, so of course I want Cub-friendly deals. But a real deal needs to be Prior friendly or else he doesn't need to bother to sign it. It has to be more Prior friendly than $3/1 with the chance at complete free agency afterwards. 1-year then play the market is a very good scenario for Prior. Let the Cubs pay him $3/1, then see where you're at next winter. If you're healthy, make a killing then. If you're still recovering strength, some team will still offer one of these incentive-based deals. I think it will be hard for Hendry to offer Prior something that's more Prior-friendly than $3/1 then free agency. It will have to be a pretty high-ceiling deal to make it better than status-quo for Prior.

Well, Kendall is in the books for Milwaukee! Awesome that we get a pick out of him, I had hoped for that but thought that was really unlikely. Even after I heard Milwaukee and Rockies were interested, I was scared he'd take too long, and by the time he'd take his physical and stuff that we'd have to decline arb before then. But not only did they agree, it appears he always passed his physical and signed the contract and the deal is real. So Hendry doesn't need to do anything, the pick is ours. That should be fairly late in the sandwich round. Comp picks for A's come before picks for B's. Within each group, it goes by team record. Since we're 19/30 in regular rounds, Kendall should be in the 2nd half of the B group. Last year the sandwich round was a bit longer than a regular round. Not sure how that will play this year. But I kind of figure the sandwich is more or less like a full round. I'd like to have a sandwich pick every year, just to keep up with what most teams get. To go without any sandwich picks is really like skipping a round altogether. Anyway, very nice news. Right now we're pretty excited about what Donaldson might be. If lucky, maybe we can get somebody who proves to be as intriguing next year, thanks to Kendall and Milwaukee's conveniently fast decision-making.

I think it's really the last 3-4 games where he's gotten hot. Only a few days ago he was coming off a 3-18 type stretch. But the last several days he's really been getting the hits, and perhaps he'd been adding some walks even before that. Hope he can keep it up. Pie has always been a streaky hitter. His average is now up to .241, and his OPS at .691, which is actually higher than the modest .674 team OPS. But he's always been streaky. Every time he's had a hot spell, I've always hoped that he'd figured it all out and was not going to be hot forever. Maybe this is that time, I hope so. But a fair chance that he's running hot now and will run cold again, later. Still, he seems to be a guy who's stance looks different every time you see him. Some guys have a stance that they like, and stick to it all the time, hot or cold. But it seems that for most of his career Felix has been constantly fiddling and adjusting. Maybe he's finally struck gold and found the stance that will work for the rest of his career. The other thing with Pie is that he's usually been awful versus lefties. So I'm guessing several good games in a row might correlate facing several straight RH starters. Throw a lefty today, and perhaps back to 0-5 with 3 K's? I hope not, obviously. Really nice to see his winter stats on the rise. There would be nothing better for the Cubs than for Pie to make it as a legit good offensive player right off the bat this April.

$45/3 for Mariano, or $44/4 or whatever for Cordero, that is "big money". $4.2, that's not big money. When you have a $115 roster, and around ten guys who will be <$1 each, that leaves you with around $105 for 15 salaried guys. So the average salary for the salaried guys is around $7. $4 for a free agent is well below average. It's not "big money". It's the cost of doing business. Sure, I wish we'd have gotten him at $1 base, with a club option on year two that would cost $2.5 or $0.2 to buyout. But that's not the market.

I agree with all but this sentence. I know it wasn't the point of the post, though. I think when you take into account backloaded contracts and the fact that the players in 2010 will be 4 years older than they were when they signed that free agent contract, which usually happens around the mid-to-late prime years (28-32), then I doubt you see a bunch of future bargains. Sure Soriano may still be a 115+ player in 2010 and salaries may balloon to make his $20M/yr in the middle of the pack, but both are extremely unlikely and may or may not be worth the risk depending on other factors. Cordero just got a deal at $12-per. Torii Hunter got a deal that averages $16. Inflation this year continues. I suspect it will continue again next year, and in 2010. When hasn't that happened? So, let's look at the Cub contracts in 2010: *Aram: $15.75. Very large bargain potential, I'd say, for a guy who's .900+'d over the last many years, and was a gold glove candidate this year. *Lee: $13 in 2010. There's a chance he'll still be a high-OBP hitter with some HR's then. Bargain potential. (Granted, his was a 2005 contract). *Zambrano: $17.85 in 2010. He's a pitcher, so he's well likely to have a shot arm by then. But given the way the market is going for starting pitchers, he has a chance to be a bargain then. (Granted, he was a 2007 contract). *Lilly: $12 in 2010. By 2010, any average rotation pitcher might be getting that much or more on the free market. OK, not bargain potential, but could very well be good value. *Alf: $18.25 in 2010. Not much bargain potential, granted. But Torii Hunter will be averaging $16, so it's plausible that he'll be fair market if not bargain. The market price keeps rising. I seriously think that at least in the cases of Aram, Lee, and Z (the resignings), they have bargain potential in future. Granted, Soriano, not so much. He'd have to be a strong all-star, even in the MVP discussion, to make $18.25 a "bargain".

I don't think it's "insane" to do the following: 1. Think baseball payroll will inflate. (Other than year post-strike, when has it not?) 2. Think that the guys you sign will remain productive, when the guys long-term are people like Aram, Lee, and Soriano, each of whom has performed at a level that is good or better than good over a while, without being old. 3. Believe in scouting. Every GM and his scouts are wrong in their scouting evalutions sometimes, and they may be wrong in thinking Fukudome is any good. But it would be insane to hire/retain scouts who you assume will always be wrong. If they believe that Fukudome is good, why would it be insane to try to acquire him? 4. Try to maximize your talent. If you sign Fukudome, assuming he's good, you've increased your talent. If you trade, the norm is that you are exchanging talent for talent. If you sign a FA, you add talent; if you trade, you reshuffle talent. It doesn't seem insane to try to increase your talent if you can afford to do so. 5. It would seem to be insane to assume that players who have been good in past and/or whom your scouting people project to be good will play bad and get you fired. Where would be the sanity in that? Is hendry a good scout? Is his plan a good one? I don't know. If they get Fukudome and he proves to be the player they project him to be, I think he'd be a good fit. A good plan. Don't see how trading good talent for Church is better. Personally I think there can be value in long-term deals.... if the guys you sign to them say healthy and play well. Salaries inflate. Contracts signed in 2006 may be huge value bargains by 2010, etc.. Having some defined contracts also makes it easier to plan ahead, when at least some of the dollar stuff is pre-known and some of the positions are known ahead of time. There is higher risk and also higher reward. Baseball team-building is inherently risky. It's not "insane" to take on long-term contract risk. It would be insane not to. The question is how many, which player, etc..

cal, thanks for the Petrick note. (And yes, I did mean that Callis *did* think his arm was fine!!) PeoriaChiefs, thanks a ton for your feedback on the Peoria pitchers. Fastballs that sink are what you'd like. If Maestri is 90-92 with some downward movement, that's perhaps as-or-more effective as somebody else's 92-95 4-seamer. So that sounds very encouraging. The comments on herandez, Ruhlman, and Siegfried are also encouraging. Nice to hear that Siegfried seems like an eager learner, and was good in instrux. Would seem to me that his fastball and curve both have excellent stuff potential; the question would seem to me more consistency and control. That might come along faster with the innings a starter gets than in relief. badnews: as pointed out, many/most of the cubs high HS picks have begun season-after-draft in full-season ball. Corey, Kelton, Goldbach, Montanez all did. Pie and Cedeno also skipped ahead to full. Those who didn't were raw talents who were really struggling or were hurt: Harvey, Dopirak, pawelek. (All of whom have subsequently confirmed that they aren't very good at what they do. So they were clearly unqualified for promotion, regardless of draft position.) In Vitters case, I assume it's a question of whether he's polished enough and is qualified and ready to compete. I think the Cubs do try to read the personalities. For some guys who may be more confidence-challenged, they may want to make sure they aren't put at a level where they'll get dominated and get discouraged. I think Pawelek may have been in that school. They seem to talk up Vitters as if he's very solid that way, so they may not be as protective of him as some other guys. It's a question of whether his skills will be enough so that he can compete and be at least reasonably successful in full-A. Most hitters drafted that high are, including the names you mentioned. One would expect Vitters should be, but what one expects doesn't always turn out, and guys don't always perform to their draft status. On slow promotions: Hendry has said that he doesn't like to promote guys that often during their first full season. Colvin is an exception, but most of the other guys don't get promoted till late season, even if doing rather well. Eric Patterson in A- is an example. I agree that if Russell looks good in spring, that he's a likely Daytona candidate. As mentioned, he was the Friday starter for Texas, one of the highest-profile college programs. And he's got some control and an alread competitive change. He's not a raw guy who necessarily needs A- experience, he can likely compete at A+. Holliman was a good example of a successful big-time college program pitcher, straight to A+. Thomas, Barney, Wright, and Smith also seem like big-program college guys, any-or-all of whom might open at Daytona. I'd think donaldson could too, except that he hasn't been catching that long and his defense is still far from polished. (Different from Barney, Smith, or Wright). Plus, he's got a blocked problem: Welington Castillo is also an excellent catching prospect, and almost certainly preferable to Donaldson defensively at the present time. So if donaldson does skip to Daytona, it would have to be as a share-time catcher. I don't think that's likely, but it's not impossible, since usually the Cubs have even their best catching prospects catch every-other-day anyway. Nathan, I think the idea of Hernandez repeating Peoria to work with Rosario is interesting and might be a good idea. Not sure the Cubs have ever held back a guy who had as effective a season as he did, though, and wasn't blocked.

Thanks much, cal. I'd hoped a guy with his size and stats would be serious. For a guy who was still 16 in April, his results were very good. Here's hoping he turns out to be a real good one and stays healthy all the way. Let's go, Yohan! Where'd you get the Fleita info, and did he have anything else to share? Gonzalez clearly had the best combo of size and stats for the 17-year-old RHP. We've already gotten some favorables on the lefty Antigua, but he was obviously not a summer signing.

I'm going to try to rationalize the Cubs thinking. 1. Hendry wants to give Lou what he wants. Lou has a good reputation, Lou had a good season, so to large degree I think Hendry wants to accede to Lou's preferences unless it's really expensive or he feels it really wrong. Lou has clearly stated that he wants more speed, more base-stealing, and more lefty bats. I'd think this should be put on Lou at least as much as on Hendry. 2. Using win shares stuff (http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=winshares&linesToDisplay=50&season_filter[0]=2007&league_filter[0]=NL&pos_filter[0]=2B&Submit=Submit&orderBy=wsp&direction=DESC&page=1), Matsui had a higher winshares score than DeRosa last year, defense included (relative to playing time.) I don't know all the calculations, but I think the James stuff is normally pretty thorough, and would include park factors and the like. Maybe Hendry or Lou are looking at those and believe that matsui last year was comparable to DeRosa? 3. Matsui's career OPS vs RHP is almost identical to DeRosa's career OPS vs RHP. Until 2007, DeRosa has had large LHP/RHP splits. If DeRosa settles back to his previous level, Lou may feel that Matsui is as good a hitter vs RHP, but superior defensively and as a baserunner. 4. Matsui's SB/CS record is very good. He rarely gets caught. His SB/CS-adjusted career OPS is comparable to DeRosa's career OPS. 5. DeRosa, Theriot, Cedeno, and Infante are all RH. Matsui is not. Lou values lefty-righty stuff very highly. 6. Lou may think that Matsui might be a preferable fit batting 2nd vs RHP than either DeRosa or Theriot. 7. Lou and Hendry like DeRosa's flexibility. DeRosa needs to get used at 3b or wherever sometimes. Lou probably sees matsui as preferable at 2B than Cedeno or Infante when DeRosa plays elsewhere. 8. It's possible that while they aren't counting on it, Lou is still hoping that either Matsui or DeRosa might prove to be acceptable defensively at SS, relative to Theriot. If Theriot is lousy versus RHP again, and if either Matsui or DeRosa can be used at least some at SS, Lou might like that option relative to Infante.

Good to hear from you. I agree that Thomas will likely skip to Daytona. I'd agree with Cal that you'll get Donaldson for sure. Vitters, I wonder. He'll be 18 till the last week of the season, so if he's in Peoria he'll be really, really young. Robbie Chirinos and Felix Pie are the only position guys I can recall opening full-A as young or younger than Vitters will be next spring. If Vitters struggles in camp, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets held back. Hopefully, of course, he won't struggle, he'll come to camp hitting and make Peoria and hit great there, too. ChiefsVoice, it's great to hear that Maestri looks so good. Two questions: 1) Could you say anything about his fastball, both velocity-wise and movement/type? Is he a guy who's ordinarily around 90-92 or so, or is that too fast? Do you know if he has some sink or 2-seam action on his fastball, or would the movement be relatively normal/average? 2) In minorleaguebaseball, they list him at 5'11", which isn't very tall for a RHP. So I've been imagining a relatively short guy who maybe wouldn't be likely to throw to hard or to project any added velocity future. But I watched a half-inning on a youtube clip, and he appeared to me to be relatively lanky, perhaps still somewhat projectible, and it appeared to me that while he wasn't tall for a pitcher, that he wasn't short either. Looked as tall as Russ Canzler, for example, who lists at 6'2". Any idea how tall he is, either in terms of 6'x" guestimate, or in terms of how his height compares to other guys on the team? Related questions: 1. Could you share any post-season thoughts on Robert Hernandez? I'm guessing his best asset is the movement on his fastball? Is he a guy who was normally in the 88-91 kind of range, velocity-wise? But perhaps projects to get faster down the road as he fills out more? Promising change? What does he have, if anything for a breaking pitch? Would you say it's more curve or more of a slider? Is that the pitch that's most raw, and needs the most work? 2. Lambert got listed by BA with the best curve in the system, and Callis was suggesting that he could become a good lefty relief prospect, look out Ohman and Eyre. Did you like what you saw from him? 3. Ruhlman had some fairly interesting numbers. Is he a guy who maybe has the stuff to be pretty serious, if he can get more consistent? Whose stuff can look pretty impressive when he's locating it? Or is his stuff definitely not as exciting relative to some of the other guys? 4. I know you only saw him twice, and his numbers were excellent. But could you share any impressions on James Russell? The scouting perspective I've gotten is that he's got a good change, but fastball is question mark. Some reports have suggested that he throws quite soft, mostly mid-80's, i.e. probably velocity is a liability unless he can really spot it. A different report suggested that at least on occassion he gets it up to 90 or even 92, and may have a bit of projection left besides, in which case velocity isn't a liability, even if it isn't necessarily a strength either. Any impression from your view? 5. Chris Siegfried: My impression is that his fastball can be excellent and his curve outstanding, on a given day when he's locating. But that he's really raw and inconsistent. Does that jive with what you saw? I thought I heard the Cubs were maybe considering trying Siegfried in rotation. Not likely, but have you heard anything like that and would that make sense from your view? Thanks a lot. It's always great to get some thoughts from somebody who's seen guys in action.

Good Q on Petrick, Callis didn't seem to think his arm is fine. That would be nice. I thought his comments on Castillo, Rhee, Maestri, Hernandez were favorable. Awfully positive on Thomas. Hopefully the Cubs will be right that they can polish up his defense and work him into a satisfactory 2B. If he could play 2B, his bat would look a lot jazzier. The Vitters/Aram comp was a good one, I thought. The tools do seem to match: contact hitting power 3B with very strong arm. If he hits like Aram, he'll be #1, no doubt about that. The comment that one of the AZ scouts loves Fuld and thinks he can be a regular, that was encouraging too. But the fact that he's got Fuld equivalent to Fox, not so much, and don't think it makes sense. Utility players who can play multiple positions at satisfactory level and hit, valuable. Utility players who are utility player because they can't play any position satisfactorily, not valuable. Fox can't catch. Don't think his bat gets him all that far as a utility 1B/RF/LF who is bad at each of them. Not too buzzed on Atkins. Disappointed that he views Barney as slower and undertooled defensively relative to Theriot. I think hopefully that may be more a matter of overrating Theriot's tools defensively. Comment that he sees the system as similar, relative to the leagues, as last year when we rated 18th, that was interesting too. Bad: With our budget, we should be better than that. Good: To hold, despite losing Guzman, Pie, and Marmol from the list, and having Veal and Samardz and Pawelek all flop bigtime (those were three who might have blossomed into real elevators), maybe to hold ground isn't too bad.

He had four stops last year: HS team, Mesa Cubs, Boise Cubs, and AFL instrux games. He hit .390 in HS; anytime a guy doesn't hit .400 or better in HS, I don't think he's hitting really well. He hit 0.067 in 7 games at Mesa; in 7 games at Boise he hit .190. I don't have stats for what he did in instrux, but based on games that Arizona Phil reported on, Vitters again had relatively few hits. Each are small samples, the last one lacks actual statistical record, there are excuses for each (was sick during spring, was rusty when the Cubs signed him), and he was 17 till late August. So I wouldn't worry too much about a mediocre 100 bats in HS and then 50 crummy pro AB's. If he's hitting next season, the scattered 2007 numbers will be totally forgotten and dismissed as nonrepresentative. meph and the scouts say there's not much question but that he'll hit. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I found it interesting that Maestri was listed as best slider. I understood his fastball was fine, but hadn't gotten the impression it was exceptional. Now we know. Fastball/slider, that's the easiest combo to throw for strikes. 0.86 WHIP is pretty good, even if over only 84 innings in relief. There are numerous useful fastball/slider guys in bigleague relief. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Alessandro%20Maestri&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=493256 Sometimes its fun to look at the "last ten games" data. For Maestri: 10games/14IP/20K/1BB/3hits. He was obviously pretty grooved in by the end. Wonder if he'll just step up to Daytona, or will skip right to AA at age 22 next spring.

Thanks, Cal. I forgot Burke. Not sure where I'd put him. I think he'd break my top-30. Not sure about top-20. So many K's against low-minors and Hawaii pitching, he'll need to fix that or else hit an awful lot of HR's. Cal, I think I asked this before and you didn't know. Do you know anything about the extend of Cabrera's arm injury? Did he have surgery yet, or not sure?

Got to disagree on "no breaking ball." It's extremely inconsistent, maybe your friend saw him on the days he had nothing with the secondary pitches? The curve is good when it is on, but that was about half the time last season. Correct. My friend said he saw him throw a couple of curveballs each game that were awful, so then it was just high fastball, high fastball, high fastball, with a couple of equally wild and bad-looking changeups thrown once in a while. Given how few excellent games he threw, I wonder how many games he had when the curve really was on, for more than a couple of innings at a time? Heh, my friend said that Samardzija's breaking ball looked way, way superior to Veal's when he saw them both during the same week. As you say, maybe just a couple of fluke bad games. (Not that hard to find, since Veal had plenty of them.) But I guess given how little enthusiasm we've rightfully heard regarding Sam's breaking ball, I thought it was perhaps telling about where Veal's stands that my friend thought Veal's was much worse. I may be jaded by a rotten season and a few bad games my friend saw. But I do have some concerns that Veal is going to end up no better than Felix Sanchez did. But, hopefully he'll turn it around.

Cal, in what way is that a "fits with BA" choice? And why are you so disinterested? Obviously he doens't have a long history of success, but which prospect pitchers do? After mid-May, he was really good for AA, clearly head-and-shoulders better than Veal or Holliman. And I thought he was better at Iowa than anybody, Gallagher included. And obviously he was effective in his brief show with the Cubs. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Kevin%20Hart&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453954 Not sure if these stats are completely correct, the last date seems weird. But I recall he was really a machine in a bunch of his late AA games, and in a couple of his Iowa games. But if this game-log is accurate, it shows him as not allowing any earned runs in 4 of his last 5 AA starts. What's wrong with that? In my view, his stuff looked big-league caliber in September. He threw it hard enough, comfortably in the 90's, and the cutter looked like a pitch that could carry him a long way. I'm not putting it all on his 11 big-league innings, although I don't think we should ignore them. But it's not just an 11-inning fluke. He was mostly quite a good picher, albeit still with a couple of bad games mixed in, over September-August-July-June. That's four months. Why dismiss that? This may sound silly. But I also think his kind of stuff is stuff that translates well to the majors. The movement on his cutter seems like it might not give him K's, but that it's a pitch he can throw to the strike zone even in the majors without being scared. Not sure he'd need to change his approach as much as some guys need to do.

Sorry, long. 1. Soto: he’s already shown he can hit, with both power and walks. And he can catch and throw. Given how hard it is to find catchers who can both defend and hit, no other player has a better chance to be an asset relative to league average at his position as does Soto. He may not have the MVP/HOF ceiling we’d like for #1. But no reason why he shouldn’t be an asset regular for a long time. To get a solid-fielding catcher who might prove to be a very solid #6 hitter, that’s good enough for #1 on my list. 2. Colvin: He’s very young, but he can hit, hit with power, and defend. I project him with good power, I think I project his power higher than many of you do. We all know the big red flag: too many K’s, way too few walks. 3. Ceda: Hard to rank a future reliever who’s so wild this high. But his stuff is the best the Cub system has had since Cruz and Prior, maybe since Wood. Excellent chance to become a really useful reliever. Red flag: walks, walks, and more walks. 4. Samardzija: Sorry, it’s just my list. And it’s based on who’d I’d least want to trade. He may have no past success, but I’m looking future. He throws hard enough and with sink, I think he’s got a chance to be an innings-eating big-league starter. Obviously no ace potential without any K-stuff. But I think he can get better, and he’s got a fair shot to become a perfectly satisfactory middle-of-rotation pitcher. Those guys are valuable. Perhaps even better. The critics will say this is lame, but I think when some scouts are really plus on a guy, there are some reasons. And, I also think that opportunity counts. There are lots of good relievers who could be good starters had they had enough opportunity, but that didn’t happen. Sam’s fastball and bonus and the scouting support will be to his advantage in getting the opportunity required to become a big-league starter. Red flag: Breaking ball and control (hence the low K’s.) 5. Vitters: With Vitters, as with Samardz, I rate him as high as I do in part because the scouts do. I’m humble enough to defer, to some extent, and know I don’t know enough to say they are all wrong. Big hitters are invaluable, and they say he could be a big hitter for power, contact, and average. But I admit I don’t have a good feeling. He already seems to profile as probably-not for 3B, and he didn’t hit in HS, rookie, or fall ball this year. Red flag: poor 3B defense and concerns whether he can actually hit. 6. Kevin Hart: He should still be eligible, right? He looked very good in September. I know it was small sample, but nothing wrong with his stuff, that cutter looked very good. He had the velocity and the cutter to be an effective big-league pitcher, didn’t need to nibble, had a pitch he could attack with, consistent groundball guy. And while the big-league sample was small, the success sample wasn’t really that small. He was good for Iowa (3.45 in August in AAA is solid), and he was 6-1, 2.70 with strong splits over his last ten AA starts. He’s already gotten over the big-league hurdle, too. I think he’s got a chance to be a solid rotation pitcher (non-ace, but solid), or the kind of effective reliever he already showed himself to be. Red Flag: Stuff looked good when his control was on. But can he sustain the control needed? And will his stuff get whacked if his control slips even a little bit? 7. Gallagher: He’s had success at every level short of the majors. To my eye, neither his fastball nor his curve had ace electricity in his Cub appearances. But he’s smart, resourceful, and has shown enough fastball velocity and location to think that his fastball could be an effective pitch even without more movement. How good he can be will depend on the consistency and command of his breaking stuff. Has a good chance to be a good rotation pitcher. Red flag: None, really. Just hasn’t clearly shown an individual pitch which is knockout good, a putaway pitch. I think that may be why he tends to run high pitch counts. 8. Donaldson: He can hit, walk, and hit with power. If he can do it defensively, he has a chance to be a huge asset player relative to his catcher position. Could be really good, and could bypass everybody on this list. Red flag: Teams expect a lot defensively from a big-league catcher. Will he really be able to make it at catcher? 2nd, will he be able to hit the breaking ball, often enough? 9. Huseby: has a chance to be a good 3-pitch control pitcher. Phil’s AFL reports were very positive about how smooth he looked. Obviously very young, lots of projection possible. But projection needed for his fastball to be asset fast. Red flag: Not fast, young, and lots of injury opportunities between now and success. 10. Rhee: May be premature. But he got paid like a serious prospect, and I’m a believer that first impressions mean something. Phil said he has a good fastball right now, with age-based projection, looks smooth, and had a dandy breaking ball. Red flag: Not exceptionally fast, and lots of injury opportunities between now and actual success. 11. Robert Hernandez: His results per age perhaps look better than his stuff. Throws well, with reasonable control and some good results for age. Red flag: hasn’t shown an especially good or consistent breaking pitch yet, and flyball oriented. As hitters get stronger than A-, that’s a question mark. 12. Veal: I assume BA will have him higher, as do most of you. Has a good arm. But so, so wild, with no sign of progress. My limited interest is perhaps colored by my friend, who saw him several times and views him as nothing but a thrower, no breaking ball that he could throw for strikes on the days he saw him. I have major trouble envisioning him as more than a lefty reliever. He could be a good one if he can get some control, but his clock is ticking. Will he come up with enough control to ever be better than a will Ohman type? Red flags: No breaking ball, no control, and nothing that he can get any groundouts with. HR’s could be a problem. 13. Fuld: Hard to know where to place a guy like this. No star potential, probably a utility outfielder. But he’s always made contact, has been a steady .370+ OBP guy, and has typically been a .400 slugger even before his big AFL. No power, but may not have any hitting holes for superior pitchers to expose; production may not drop as much in majors as is true for most players. Good fielder, smart. Sometimes teams without good starters need to turn to utility players. A chance that Pie will flop, and Fuld will get an extended opportunity sooner rather than later. If he does well, I don’t want to look back and say “I knew he had a good shot to be a solid if unspectacular player, but I didn’t think being a competent non-superstar was good enough for my list.” Red flags: No power, so opportunity beyond utility won’t come easily, unless it comes soon. 14. Roquet: Maybe deserves higher. Good arm, good slider. I think his stuff may be already be ready to be a good reliever. Red Flag: Control? Health? 15. Patterson: Got a chance to develop into a functional utility guy, if he can make himself into defensive CFer. I thought his key was proving he could play big-league 2B, and most people don’t believe that’s in the cards anymore. Now the same question applies to how good he’ll be defensively in CF. 16. Billy Petrick: His stuff looked really good last summer. Looked like he could be a straightforward effective reliever. Those are invaluable. Red Flag: I’m out of the loop. Is his arm shot again? Or is there a chance that his arm will be just fine with some additional rest? 17. Thomas: Cubs saw enough for 3rd round money, and he was pretty good for Boise. But I’m not that high on him. Don’t expect his basestealing to carry up. Currently and seemingly according to projection, doesn’t have the power to justify all the K’s or supposedly mediocre defense. Red Flag: Defense, K’s, and power. 18. Maestri: Kept getting people out, throws a good fastball, good control. Results guy. 19. Wellington Castillo: Some good defense talent, hit alright for a guy with little experience. Red flags: Scouts don’t seem to rave, so apparently his hitting doesn’t project that well. 20. Clevenger: Catchers who can hit are valuable. No power, but a guy who always makes contact, that’s an unusual attribute and can take a guy a long way. 21. Acosta: He sounds like he could be pretty good. As young as he is, if they liked him enough to pay him 4th round money, and if he’s started as favorably as people say, there’s something good there. 22. Russell: They liked enough to give 3rd round money, and in brief sample he did well. Control pitcher with a good change, may not need overwhelming stuff. But still young enough and with enough mixed scouting reports, maybe his stuff is or will be better than we expected?

Disappointed to see Gonzalez doing so badly, and with the 9/1 K/BB. So, do you know anything about this Hector Mayora? I don't recall any such guy playing in our system and I couldn't find his name, at least with that spelling, in bbcube or minorleague baseball or baseball reference. Those are some jazzy stats, makes me curious.

Cal, do you know what kind of usage Pie gets on that team? I know he's one of their worst hitters, and I'm assuming that's why he doesn't have stats every day. Is he their regular CF, or did he start that way but hit his way into a utility role? Does he play all center, or some RF as well? Does he hit in a respectable batting spot, like you might expect for an elite prospect who's maybe going to be a big-league starter in April? Or is he basically used as a #8 or #9 hitter, as befits his auto-out-with-no-power winterball performance?

Burke sustaining a slick .548 BABIP. At some point, he's going to need to chill on the K's if he's going to sustain big offense.

Theriot was a .634-OPS vs RHP this year, Matsui is a career .728 vs RHP. Not sure what you'd lose defensively with Kaz or if you moved DeRosa over. But whatever Matsui can't do, I think it's fair to say that even he hits RHP significantly better than does Theriot. Theriot does very well vs LHP. I agree, a platoon could be better than what we've got now.

Kendall made B, missed A by surprisingly little. That's a good thing, nobody loses any draft picks for signing a B, so there is no disincentive to doing so, no reason to stall. Kendall will get signed this winter, no question about that. The issue is when. Before the recent contract, teams would rarely/never sign a guy like Kendall before the Cubs had a chance to decline arbitration. By waiting, they wouldn't lose anything. That's why to some degree FA kind of stalled until after the December arb day. I think the new contract has changed the landscape and the timeline for free agency. Now you can go to work as soon as you want. If a team likes Kendall as a veteran share-time catcher, they can sign him as soon as they like. Perhaps even before arb day. Obviusly I don't think that's likely. Kendall is really competitive, and likes to play. He's used to being the #1 every-day starter, and he's used to getting tons of millions. Yes, he'll sign. But he's not going to be guaranteed #1 status, he's not going to get paid a lot, and he's not going to be one of the top-5 winter targets for any teams. Focus on the important stuff first, fiddle around with low-impact guys like Kendall after the big stuff is settled. So I think it will take him a while to get the attention required to make a decision, and I think it will take him a while to realize and accept how little interest there will be in his services. But, you never know, maybe we'll get lucky somehow. While somebody is waiting on the big stuff, they have some time for little stuff and work out a Kendall deal. Or, maybe his wife wants things decided well before Christmas season, and tells him to decide early rather than dragging. Or, maybe there's some personal connection that causes him to sign bck with Pittsburgh, or near his wife's home area, or whatever. It would sure be cool if he did sign before the cubs had to non-arb him, and we got a pick there. The sandwich is probably going to be as big or bigger than a full round these days. So to go with no comp pick will be like losing a round.

Yeah, the reports I've read have been 89-91 type. I watched one inning on a youtube or something, and on that game his fastball seemed to be mostly 88-89, maybe one in the 90's? I'd guess that every pitcher who can consistently work at 89 has touched 95 on occassion. So my impression is that he's a control guy more than a power guy. But, I don't know much. Just to belabor the point. I remember one of his early spring trainings, Wuertz hit 95. Last winter I recall reading how Rocky Cherry was throwing 96-97 late in 06. I recall Z hitting 98 this season, but that wasn't anywhere close to where he pitched regularly. Mr. Gallagher reported that Sean hit 96 last week. I recall Sean marshall having a 93 mph this season. I like Kuroda, and I sincerely hope we sign him. But if we do and he's successful, my guess is that his velocity will be no more exceptional than Lilly or Lieber or guys like that. If he's good, I expect it will be as a guy who can locate his fastball. Have a fastball that has enough zip/life combined with enough control so that he's not scared to throw it for strikes. Enough control so that with whatever velocity it has or doesn't have, he can put it where it will get outs rather than HR's.

I'm interested in Kuroda. As noted, he's had some very good years on a bad team in a small park. He's been pretty regularly an all-star, right? And he was selected for the Olympic Team even before he had the fabulous 06 season? His stuff doesn't scout as anything great, so maybe that means no better than a back-of-rotation guy or maybe a disaster. But his history is as a strike-thrower who's not HR-fodder despite pitching in a small park. His stuff doesn't translate as ace-like, granted. But if he can throw his stuff here without giving up a lot of HR's, then a guy with average stuff and an average HR-rate can be an above-average starter if his control and walks are noticably above average. And, a guy who can throw strikes consistently is often a guy who can fairly consistently give you a decent cmpetitive game, and eat some innings. I do always wonder whether a Japanese pitcher used to 6-days might not have the same stuff going in an American rotation. If he's 90-91 over there, but 87-89 over here, is he still as competitive?